Hanging a noose on a tree where blacks are excluded is not a criminal act. It certainly could be if it signified a credible threat, but no one has seriously suggested that the black students feared death by lynching.

Symbolic speech is still speech, and displaying nooses is not automatically less politically speechlike than burning an American flag in time of war. Most so-called progressives apparently assume that the white students acted outside their Constitutional rights and should face criminal prosecution for a speech act. This rather than the racism displayed by children is the most frightening aspect of this controversy.

I do not see this as a free speech issue. Students on school property have less expectation to their rights than individuals do otherwise. Also - even if no one expected those students to be lynched - and I am not conceding that was the case at all - the nooses are still weapons - which I am assuming are also forbidden on school property.

If you can be charged with terroristic threats for saying "I'm going to kill you" with enough anger in your voice to make it somewhat believable - nooses are not protected speech, either.

I don't view the burning of an American flag as the same as or comparable to hanging a noose. One is a protest - the other is a threat. If the students had hung confederate flags under the tree and the events spiraled the same way they did - I'd be more open to your argument. While the confederate flag is considered a symbol of hatred for many, it wouldn't nearly the threat gesture a noose is.

Free speech rights are not determined by people's expectations. The expectation test governs privacy rights, not speech rights, which apply whether the speaker or anyone else expects they will apply. Whether the school has the right to curtail conduct is a different question from whether the the Constitution permits its criminalization. Even if the school can lawfully punish "Bongs for Jesus," the most conservative jurist would have to admit that jailing people for such comments would grossly violate the first and fourteenth amendments.

If an actual death threat can be proven, criminal prosecution should ensue. Does it not appear that the correct characterization of the nooses was a racial insult rather than a threat? The black reaction, aggressive and without fearfulness, certainly supports this assessment. The nooses were a reminder of history, and a statement that such treatment is what blacks deserve, It did not constitute a clear and present danger of creating a lynch mob. Displaying a noose is like using the word "nigger" for black, a term that also has a rich association with lynch mobs. Whatever necessity exists to prohibit and punish insults directed towards fellow students in the schools, this necessity should not be confused with the propriety of criminalizing mere insulting language.

Finally, I have no doubt that the readiness of so-called progressives to ban mere speech derives party from compromises Bush and company have imposed on free speech in the name of the "war on terror." Bush has effectively lowered the general bar on repression.